2004 PLP 1467 (YLR)

Date of hearing: 6th October, 2003. The petitioner appeared in the B.A. First Annual Examination, 1995. She failed in English. The result card issued to her stated that she was eligible to reappear in the failed subject till the B.A. First Annual Examination 1997. She thereafter appeared in the Second Annual Examination 1996 in the English paper. She once again failed securing 62 marks out of

200. In this result card it was expressly stipulated that she was eligible to reappear in the failed subject till the B.A. First Annual Examination 1998.

2. She appeared in the Second Annual Examination, 1997 and cleared the English paper. These facts are not disputed.

3. Thereafter her result card has been withheld by the respondent University. Learned counsel for the University has referred to the Regulations of the University to point out that the petitioner could, at most, have availed four chances immediately following the 1995 B.A. First Annual Examination when she appeared for the first time. According to him, the result card for the Second Annual Examination, 1996 erroneously mentioned the petitioner's eligibility to appear in the failed paper till First Annual Examination, 1998 instead of 1997.

4. It is quite obvious to me in the above circumstances that when the petitioner appeared in the Second Annual Examination, 1997, she was doing so on the express representation made by the University that she was entitled to appear in the failed subject till the B.A. First Annual Examination, 1998. She has also passed the said examination. In these circumstances, reliance by the University on some Regulations, can hardly be grounds for overriding the express representation noted above.

5. Learned counsel for the University argued that the result card mentioned above bore the noting that it was merely a notice and that errors and omissions were expected. On this basis, it was contended that mentioning the year 1998 instead of 1997 was an error on the part of the concerned functionary of the University. He relied on the case titled Shahid Bashir v. Chairman, Punjab Board of Technical Education and 2 others 2001 MLD 573 to contend that errors and omissions made in the result card could not give any vested right to a candidate. The facts of the cited case are distinguishable. Therein the result of a candidate had been announced in which the candidate had been declared successful in a paper but subsequently it was found that the candidate had failed. In this ease there has been no such error or omission pertaining to the result of the petitioner.

6. It was for the University to be diligent in ensuring that its Regulations were complied with by its own functionaries. The failure of the University to do so cannot be allowed to prejudice the petitioner and to affect her education all qualifications. It is also important to note that when the petitioner applied for and was allowed to sit in the Second Annual Examination, 1997, the University did not raise any objection against the petitioner's candidature.

7. In addition to the above, upon being questioned if action had been taken against the delinquent functionaries of the University who was responsible for the alleged error in the petitioner's result card, he frankly conceded that no disciplinary or other action has been taken against any functionary in the University.

8. The University by its own conduct and representations, as, noted above, is estopped from withholding the result of the petitioner. It is also obvious now that if at all, there has been any error on the part of the University or its functionaries, it is the University which has to suffer the consequences of such error and not the petitioner.

9. Based on the above discussion, I am not in any doubt that the petitioner is entitled to the declaration of her result, having passed the B.A. paper in the Second Annual Examination, 1997.

10. In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed and the University is directed to declare the petitioner's result. M.H./S‑33/L Petition allowed.